Revisiting Marx's Value Theory: A Critical Response to Analyses of Digital Prosumption

Abstract

In their assessment of value creation through prosumption and other activities related to the use of digital technologies, despite significant differences, Fuchs (2010) and Arvidsson and Colleoni (2012) misinterpret Marx's value theory. Through their analyses, a totalizing or new form of capitalism is said to have emerged, but these, I argue, entail demonstrably idealist theorizations. The end result is that these authors occlude more than they clarify in their debates concerning value, exploitation, and the role played by digital technologies. However, once we understand the precision needed to apply Marx's complex theory—including his conceptualization of “labor power” and the distinction he makes between “productive” and “unproductive” labor—it becomes apparent that a more careful reading of Marx is a priority.

Keywords:

• digital technology
• exploitation
• labor
• Marx
• prosumption
• value

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks Des Freedman, Jason Netherton, Vincent Manzerolle, and Lee McGuigan for their contributions to this perspective.

Notes

1. In the absence of more precision, perhaps it can be argued that the knowledge expended by media and Internet capitalists—ranging from Rupert Murdoch to Mark Zuckerberg—is not exploited because they are among the few who steer prosumers/knowledge workers. Having hypothesized this, however, I still wonder what distinguishes the knowledge used to steer from the knowledge used to produce or reproduce, as, surely, when the moment of production is conflated with the production process, fundamentally, these become interchangeable. Thanks to Des Freedman for raising this point in a private correspondence.

2. If value-creating and exploitative relationships are everywhere, analytically they are nowhere. Moreover, in Fuchs, Arvidsson, and Colleoni, the “moments” of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption are (correctly) assessed holistically while the ephemeral qualities of digital activities are (incorrectly) assumed to substantiate the authors’ general failure to treat each as being also analytically distinct.

3. Similarly, family news posted on a Facebook page or remarks made using Twitter concerning a new television series—even if these are culled, packaged, and sold to advertisers—are not in themselves forms of labor that produce surplus value, although they certainly are part of the more general production process (just as criminal activities inarguably are forms of labor that yield locks and other security devices which can be produced and subsequently sold as commodities bearing surplus values).

4. To reiterate, corporations and individuals providing commercial services seek profits, of course, but these profits are not necessarily (and often are not primarily) derived from their production of valuable (i.e., surplus value-laden) commodities.